Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-3 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
Priority
Applicant's claims priority to Korean patent application No. KR10-2020-0137372 filed October 22, 2010 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a-d) is acknowledged. However, a certified translation of the priority documents is not provided.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/20/2023 were filed before the filing of a first office action on the merits. As such, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Objections
Specification
The specification is objected to in its entirety, because the translation skews the alignment of many paragraph numbers, above or below indentations. Please correct, so as to make clear where a paragraph starts and ends.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to for use of the term “the present embodiment,” as opposed to the present invention. That is to say, it implies that the abstract is only applicable to “the present embodiment.” A brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole is required. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Moreover, the phrase “. . . for controlling to set . . .” is confusing (throughout). Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they recite non-patentable subject matter under MPEP § 2106, e.g., the 2019 PEG, October update. More particularly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, etc.) without practical application or significantly more.
More particularly, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Broad categories of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas. See, generally, MPEP § 2106; Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. __ (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1297-98 (2012)); Federal Register notice titled 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618), which is found at: http:// www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance; the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019; and associated Office memoranda.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 1, the claimed invention, taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a process (i.e., a method), machine (e.g., apparatus, system, etc.), article of manufacture (e.g., a non-transitory computer readable medium) or composition of matter, and as such, is patent eligible.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 2a-prong 1, Claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception(s), including a method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principle). More particularly, the entirety of the method steps is directed towards a method of managing power at a vehicle charging station including charging and discontinuing charge where a state of battery (e.g., energy storage system) exceeds and is below a threshold. This is a wide-spread commercial practice performed by consumers of electric vehicles manually and via generic computing. As such, the inventions include an abstract idea under § 2106, and Alice Corporation.
Under step 2a-prong 2, the claims fail to recite a practical application of the exception, because the extraneous limitations (e.g., the structure—ESS, high speed chargers, etc.) merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or generally instruct an artisan to apply it (the method) across generic computing technology.
A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). That is to say, the claims are not directed to a new software or computer, but rather employs pre-existing software to do what’s been previously done, albeit less efficiently or slower. “[I]t is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). More particularly, the claims fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology (under MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the use of a particular machine (under § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (§ 2106.05(c)), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (§ 2106.05(e)).
Under part 2b, the additional elements offered by the dependent claims either further delineate the abstract idea, add further abstract idea(s), adds insignificant extra-solution activity, or further instruct the artisan to apply it (the abstract idea(s)) across generic computing technology. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because no one claim effects an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Under Alice, merely applying structure or executing the abstract idea on one or more generic computer system (e.g., a computer system comprising a generic database; a generic element (NIC) for providing website access, etc.; a generic element for receiving user input; and a generic display on the computer, in any of their forms) to carry out the abstract idea more efficiently fails to cure patent ineligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims reciting a “scanner” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea). Moreover, merely reciting steps that can be performed in the human mind is not patent eligible (see, e.g., Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (collecting and comparing data are mental steps); Braemar Mfg. LLC v. ScottCare Corp., 816 F. App’x 465, 470 (“Claims that “merely collect, classify, or otherwise filter data” are ineligible for patent under § 101.”); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372-72 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (comparing a collected list of credit card numbers to transactions to identify different cards and user names used from the same IP address to detect fraud can be performed entirely in the human mind including the logical reasoning.)) “The requirements that the machine learning model be “iteratively trained’ or dynamically adjusted in Machine Learning Training patents do[es] not represent a technological improvement.” Recentive Analytics, 134 F 4th at 1212. Claim language reciting the machine learning model at a high level of generality without any specificity of how the machine learning model is trained or processes the data. The machine learning model is merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Id. at 1213 (claims recite ineligible subject matter where “the only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment”).
Lastly, courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, MPEP 2106.05(d), wherein the italicized tasks are particularly germane to the instant invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5-8, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0206376 to Gibbs et al.
With respect to Claim 1, Cun teaches a method for managing power of an electric vehicle charging station using an energy storage system (ESS) in a power management device (Abstract; FIG. 1; [0033-36]; [0052]), comprising the steps of: measuring the charging amount of the ESS by checking the state of charge (SOC) of the ESS; determining whether the charging amount of the ESS is less than a first set value set through the emergency storage capacity of the ESS; if it is determined that the charging amount of the ESS is greater than the first set value, setting the ESS to a discharge mode, and controlling the ESS to enable high-speed charging through a plurality of high-speed chargers connected to the ESS by providing power to the plurality of high-speed chargers; if it is determined that the charging amount of the ESS is less than the first set value, setting the ESS to a charge mode, and controlling the ESS to stop the operation of the plurality of high-speed chargers by not supplying power to the plurality of high-speed chargers; in a case in which the ESS is set to the discharge mode, simultaneously operating the high-speed chargers that exceed a reference value, among the plurality of high-speed chargers, and checking the charging state of the ESS again when the discharging amount of the ESS reaches a target value; and in a case in which the ESS is set to the charge mode, checking the charging state of the ESS again if the charge mode of the ESS is maintained for a predetermined reference period. (Abstract; FIG. 1; [0033-36]; [0052])
With respect to Claim 2, Cun teaches if it is determined that the charging amount of the ESS is less than the first set value, determining whether there is a high-speed charger in operation which provides a high-speed charge service, among the plurality of high-speed chargers; if it is determined that there is no high-speed charger in operation, setting the ESS to the charge mode, and controlling to stop the operation of the plurality of high-speed chargers; if it is determined that there is a high-speed charger in operation, determining whether the charging amount of the ESS is less than the second set value based on the state of health (SOH) of the ESS; if it is determined that the charging amount of the ESS is greater than the second set value, controlling to supply power to the high-speed charger in operation to continue high-speed charging through the high-speed charger in operation; if the high-speed charging through the high-speed charger in operation is continued, when the high-speed charging is completed, setting the ESS to the charging mode and controlling to stop the operation of the high-speed charger in operation; and if it is determined that the charging amount of the ESS is less than the second set value, setting the ESS to the charging mode and controlling to stop the operation of the high-speed charger in operation even if high-speed charging through the high-speed charger in operation is not completed. (Abstract; FIG. 1; [0033-36]; [0052])
With respect to Claim 3, Cun teaches if the frequency of a grid network exceeds a predetermined reference value, receiving a first command from an upper controller that manages a plurality of power management devices arranged in different regions, and setting the ESS to the charging mode according to the first command; if the frequency of a grid network is lower than the reference value, receiving a second command from an upper controller, and setting the ESS to the discharging mode according to the second command; detecting the frequency of a distribution network connected to the ESS, and if it is determined that the frequency of the distribution network is higher than a reference range, setting the ESS to the charging mode, and if it is determined that the frequency of the distribution network is lower than a reference range, setting the ESS to the discharging mode; if the ESS is connected to a vehicle to grid (V2G) device, controlling power not to be supplied from the V2G device to the grid network, and controlling the power supplied from the V2G device to be first stored in the ESS or to be used as power consumption in a charging station; and when a third command is received from the upper controller, controlling power to be supplied from the V2G device to the grid network according to the third command. (Abstract; FIG. 1; [0031-36]; [0052])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/Examiner, Art Unit 3696